Interesting topic, thanks for bringing Ian Wilson to my attention.
I don't see myself as a biblicist, so in answer to your first question -
It certainly makes a case for a considerable flood in the region, and I'd be really interested in learning of any further evidence that would support or refute this theory. It certainly seems to lend support, though I can't say I've reviewed Wilson's work closely, or read any critiques of his approach.
Just as I think those who believe the bible without reviewing the physical evidence are on pretty shaky ground, I don't think that those who reject the Old Testament as history are justified in poo-pooing an event like the biblical flood out of hand, without reviewing the evidence. If all the evidence is in support, then you would be wise to either believe something or review it further -at least that's my opinion.
There is a school of thought that says that every miracle in the bible can be explained in scientific terms. In this way, a global flood becomes a local flood affecting a certain culture. Saul's Damascene moment becomes a bout of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy[J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 1987]. People even have a stab at explaining how Jesus could have walked on water given a very particular set of circumstances. Personally I don't subscribe to this approach. It seems far too willing to take the original sources at their literal word, just as modern 'biblicists' (I love that word).
I think this is dangerous because there might be a temptation to believe that there
must have been a flood somewhere if its in the bible, when the plain truth is that we cannot begin to understand the writer's intentions. The flood could have been entirely metaphorical, or some other kind of big fib, after all.
That's why, in my opinion, you have to attempt to substantial any big claims with evidence.
Sorry if its all been said already by the way; I just wanted to respond when I saw the topic.
Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2